Wayne, do you understand the crucial difference between correlation and causation? I honestly do not believe you do, as evidenced by the earlier discussions here about how everything has been getting worse since 1963.

I know the difference and so did the founders that prayed fervently for God's protections of a baby nation, just like I prayed for my baby girl. It worked for them, and I'm following their example. The coorelation of our prayers was the causation of their future safety.

I just know your going to love that answer Anfauglir.

It's what I've come to expect from you Wayne - cutting the crucial part of my question so that you can ignore it. Here's the bit you chopped out:

Would you be okay with stating what you understand by the two terms, and how you would go about determining if something was one rather than the other?

I.E. "Causation is.....", "Correlation is.....", "the process I use to determine if a thing is one or the other is....."

Because I honestly don't believe you understand the difference between the two terms. And if you don't - and if you have no way of differentiating between the two - then every single one of your glurges holds no meaning for anyone other than yourself.

I guess my graduation party wasn't too popular. I never was good at organising parties. Please allow this comment to remain to mark in the thread my one month anniversary. I may want to return to this spot when I'm depressed and lonely to reminisce on how it might have been.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I guess my graduation party wasn't too popular. I never was good at organising parties. Please allow this comment to remain to mark in the thread my one month anniversary. I may want to return to this spot when I'm depressed and lonely to reminisce on how it might have been.

Or you could stixck to the subject of the thread and actually answer the many questions placed before you, rather than try to introduce red herrings and deflect attention away from your stalling and obfuscation.

When you feel depressed, just remind yourself that it must be god's will.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Wayne, do you understand the crucial difference between correlation and causation? I honestly do not believe you do, as evidenced by the earlier discussions here about how everything has been getting worse since 1963.

I know the difference and so did the founders that prayed fervently for God's protections of a baby nation, just like I prayed for my baby girl. It worked for them, and I'm following their example. The coorelation of our prayers was the causation of their future safety.

I just know your going to love that answer Anfauglir.

It's what I've come to expect from you Wayne - cutting the crucial part of my question so that you can ignore it. Here's the bit you chopped out:

Would you be okay with stating what you understand by the two terms, and how you would go about determining if something was one rather than the other?

I.E. "Causation is.....", "Correlation is.....", "the process I use to determine if a thing is one or the other is....."

Because I honestly don't believe you understand the difference between the two terms. And if you don't - and if you have no way of differentiating between the two - then every single one of your glurges holds no meaning for anyone other than yourself.

The glurges: I had to look that up.

Quote

1.Sickeningly sweet stories with a moral, often hiding slightly sinister undertones.Imitative of the retching that might be induced by stories of this kindhttp://en.dictionary.org/wiki/glurge

You have such a kind way with words, you and bertatberts make a good team.

We should start from ground zero. My first introduced story called: Why God Let Those Kids Die, and analyse just what it is about it that makes it a glurge.

Point by point, the sinister undertone. Please explain.

Then, would you next please point out each point and phrase about it qualifies as sickeningly sweet.

You throw these terms around, I need you to defend them.

I have told you all before that I am a reporter of what has happened to me, I'm not a fiction writer. As you look at what I've written in that light, and the dire repercussions that have resulted from atheist bad behavior, I hardly think that qualifies as a glurge.

However, if someone is at a loss to find an adequate rebuttal to the reporting of supernatural guidance, they resort to profanities.

So, are you using Glurge as a profanity because you are at a loss? Or do you think my Why God Let Those Kids Die is sickeningly sweet?

The rest of you take note.This causation coorelation thing has its applications in a normal argument. What I have done here is deliver reports, many reports of the supernatural. I am not making them up. I am not lying about them. I am not demented. I have no mental illness. I am not psychotic. I am not deranged.

All of these truths of the matter should give you pause as you try to apply your normal analysis to what I have written. The causation coorelation may be meaningful in some instance but the shear number of accounts I have cannot be diced up in the conventional way.

Anfauglir is doing his best with what she has here, but it is wholly inadequate. It doesn't work with the supernatural.

Look at my earthquake story. Where is the sickeningly sweet part there? Is it not absurd to hammer at it with causation and coorelation analysis? Where is my sinister undertone to be found in my reporting of a supernatural incident?

It's OK Anfauglir. You are doing your best. I'm not asking you to quit, I'm saying slow down and think about it. It is futile to attack a report of the supernatural as if it is a malformed opinion. My interpretation of the meaning of the supernatural incident could be questioned I suppose, but my misinterpretation doesn't diminish the fact that it is a supernatural event.

Why don't you try this: strip away any commentary of what I think God meant by the earthquake incident, and tell me what the incident would have meant to you if it had happened to you. Re read that story and forget about whatever it was I said I thought it meant.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

.... and I think you are avoiding answering the questions you have been asked...

isn't my timing exquisite? The thing said you had this waiting for me when I sent the reply. I love when that happens.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 11:28:53 AM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Speaking of the ex-wife, Wayne...and I think at one point early on you referred to her as "one of my ex-wives"...It has been brought up by me and a few others that this history doesn't quite gibe with your insistence that only by keeping prayer in schools, etc, can we hope to eliminate all sorts of evils such as divorce.

How is it that such a fervent Christian as yourself seems to have failed at least twice on this front?

I need to correct an earlier reference that I didn't notice pasted differently in the post than it read in on the web Somehow questionmarks replaced some of the 'o's. My BOLD

I'll tolerate a correction on this as I'm not a latin greek english scholar and the God of the bible might not be the same as the 'god' that means good, byt I have always thought that and used this to substantiate it.

You're being confused by the fact that the two words are written almost the same, but the pronunciation difference is far more dramatic than that. If we wrote "god" the way it actually sounds, it would be far harder for people to make this false assumption. But thanks to the Great Vowel Shift (starting in the 1600s), we're stuck with five written vowels even though we actually use somewhere between a dozen and two dozen in actual speech. To see what I mean, try pronouncing hat ('ae'), fast ('aa'), and abandon ('uh' followed by 'ae'). That's three separate vowel sounds represented by a single written vowel, which don't really sound that much like each other once you pay close attention.

For that matter, "god" is pronounced with with an 'a' sound. So it shouldn't really be written with an 'o' at all.

There's no real etymological link between "god" and "good", in other words.

Speaking of the ex-wife, Wayne...and I think at one point early on you referred to her as "one of my ex-wives"...It has been brought up by me and a few others that this history doesn't quite gibe with your insistence that only by keeping prayer in schools, etc, can we hope to eliminate all sorts of evils such as divorce.

How is it that such a fervent Christian as yourself seems to have failed at least twice on this front?

My wives divorced me. I stayed single for ten years without dating after my second so as not to confuse my daughter. My daughter it could be said, matched me up with my present wife. I must have been a catch because both exs have never remarried. If you want a little more insight look here. http://tinyurl.com/JRoyMoore

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I need to correct an earlier reference that I didn't notice pasted differently in the post than it read in on the web Somehow questionmarks replaced some of the 'o's. My BOLD

I'll tolerate a correction on this as I'm not a latin greek english scholar and the God of the bible might not be the same as the 'god' that means good, byt I have always thought that and used this to substantiate it.

There's no real etymological link between "god" and "good", in other words.

Thanks, I never was certain, and I have often been wrong about such associations.

Now what I think is interesting is this. And you can test this for me. When I pasted from the website the definition, it clearly read an o on the web and that o converted without my knowing to a ?

Do you know what happened there? I just think it is really funny that I didn;t notice it until later and the ? is exactly what you are talking about. Go the that reference if you have time, and copy paste it in one of these windows, and check the preview an tell me if it converts the o to ?

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Those black diamonds are character encoding issues. You'll probably want to change your encoding to Unicode (UTF-8 or UTF-16). In Firefox, you go to the View menu, Character Encoding, and then select the encoding you want. In Internet Explorer, go to the View menu, Encoding, then select the encoding you want.

I'm set to UTF-8, there wasn't a UTF-16 in the dropdown. I see it in my outlook emails more than online. I looked for the same settings in outlook, but not yet.

Thanks for the tip

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Speaking of the ex-wife, Wayne...and I think at one point early on you referred to her as "one of my ex-wives"...It has been brought up by me and a few others that this history doesn't quite gibe with your insistence that only by keeping prayer in schools, etc, can we hope to eliminate all sorts of evils such as divorce.

How is it that such a fervent Christian as yourself seems to have failed at least twice on this front?

My wives divorced me. I stayed single for ten years without dating after my second so as not to confuse my daughter. My daughter it could be said, matched me up with my present wife. I must have been a catch because both exs have never remarried. If you want a little more insight look here. http://tinyurl.com/JRoyMoore

Respectfully, Wayne, has it occurred to you that they both divorced you because they were unhappy being married to you? And that perhaps they were so unhappy, that they decided to never risk marriage again?

Just a possibility to consider.

Or maybe one, (or both of them), really just don't have that much interest in men.

Respectfully, Wayne, has it occurred to you that they both divorced you because they were unhappy being married to you? And that perhaps they were so unhappy, that they decided to never risk marriage again?

Just a possibility to consider.

Or maybe one, (or both of them), really just don't have that much interest in men.

Religion is probably the problem here not the solution. Religion needs to be something a couple agree on i.e both have the same faith and the same denomination. If people marry people of other religions it just adds another strain to the relationship - especially if one religion (Catholic say) insist that all children be brought up as Catholics regardless of the views of the other spouse. Because there is not even on Christian faith but thousands the god that is supposed to unite people can very well end up dividing them instead.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

In 1642, a one-eyed man named George Spencer was accused of beastiality by his Puritan brethren. Because a one eyed piglet had been born, and he was accused of being its father. He was executed.

Your job, Wayne, is this. Though your thoughts seem less dangerous, you need to convince us that they are more grounded in reality and eminently more reasonable than the ideas of the above mentioned Puritans, 460 years ago. So far, you aren't doing too good.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Respectfully, Wayne, has it occurred to you that they both divorced you because they were unhappy being married to you? And that perhaps they were so unhappy, that they decided to never risk marriage again?

Just a possibility to consider.

Or maybe one, (or both of them), really just don't have that much interest in men.

Religion is probably the problem here not the solution. Religion needs to be something a couple agree on i.e both have the same faith and the same denomination. If people marry people of other religions it just adds another strain to the relationship - especially if one religion (Catholic say) insist that all children be brought up as Catholics regardless of the views of the other spouse. Because there is not even on Christian faith but thousands the god that is supposed to unite people can very well end up dividing them instead.

The duties of a wife are far from where they were 2000 years ago or even 50-100 years ago......maybe that is the problem(from a religious persons view) on why wives divorce husbands,the wives are no longer interested in the servants role?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Respectfully, Wayne, has it occurred to you that they both divorced you because they were unhappy being married to you? And that perhaps they were so unhappy, that they decided to never risk marriage again?

I know I walked into this and I deserve this line of questioning. There was blame to go around. I'm going to resist turning this into a Dr. Phil session, but I can absolutely confirm that neither thought they got their money's worth and I spent ten years alone, in part, agreeing with them.

Marry rich.. girls, or live with the richer or poorer pledge.

You could never be as hard on me as I have been on myself, so if I were you, I wouldn't bother. Take a look at that Judge RoyMoore story, not because it's about me, it's not, but because it is about a glorious marriage in a tenuous circumstance. It's a guy who's circumstance I envy.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

In 1642, a one-eyed man named George Spencer was accused of beastiality by his Puritan brethren. Because a one eyed piglet had been born, and he was accused of being its father. He was executed.

Your job, Wayne, is this. Though your thoughts seem less dangerous, you need to convince us that they are more grounded in reality and eminently more reasonable than the ideas of the above mentioned Puritans, 460 years ago. So far, you aren't doing too good.

It's fun finding bad examples to make your case appear water tight isn't it. You my friend are on a leaky pirate ship without enough buckets.

Will you entertain yet another of my accounts of the supernatural? You know, the things on which my case is unique among all the Christians on this site in the last five years? The accounts that give me confidence not-my-own that cannot be shaken because it is founded upon a Rock? The proof of God for which the title of your pirate ship WWGHA begs?

You said you have a trillion arguments against religion, as though I'm here to defend religion of a trillion inconsistencies. I for my part use the word religion in dirisive terms more than I could find a favorable term for it, and I know you know that.

Jesus got into his biggest rage about religion, overthrowing tables lashing religious money changers with a scourge. That was the corrupt religious system he was born into, so the next time you and I talk about an issue, save yourself of all the objections on which Jesus Christ would agree with you when you bring up a subject with me and we can have some meaningful conversations.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Wayne Harropson: Answer the questions posed to you or F**k off. Do one or the other and stop dodging. We don't need more of your imbecilic BS, we need you to reply to the posters here. A**ehole!

Also it would be good if you could actual do what the OP asks, and validate your believes.Here's the OP again just in case you missed it. This is a thread after all about validating your believes, not about Wayne.

Allowing yourself to believe that an unvalidated feeling, idea or situation is true is self-deception. If your first thought on reading the title of this thread was, “Why should I?” then please explain why you would rather live your life constantly deceiving yourself than accepting reality. I think I know the answer to that, but this thread is for those theists who would rather be intellectually honest.

The first thing we need to do is determine exactly what it is you believe in so please provide a factual description of your God’s characteristics and abilities so that we can be sure that we will know it when we see it. Try to be as specific as possible to avoid ambiguity. We need to be able to differentiate your God from other phenomena. So, for example, claiming that your God is love or the universe or is all around us is not helpful in the least. Claiming that your God is supernatural or beyond the natural, observable universe is also not helpful. If your God is beyond the observable universe then how could you possibly have observed it to conclude that it is real? So again, please provide a factual description of your God’s specific characteristics and abilities.

If you cannot provide a factual description of your God then please provide enough sound evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is real. I’m assuming that no intellectually honest person would use unsound evidence or unsound arguments to reach a conclusion. Try to avoid using misapprehensions, fallacies or misrepresentations as evidence or arguments. Bare assertions or assumptions are not useful. Please provide evidence and arguments that can be tested and verified and that unambiguously establish your God as the only explanation.

If you cannot provide a factual description of your God or any sound evidence or sound arguments to support your belief then please explain what distinguishes your belief from imagination. Imagination is forming a mental image of something not present to the senses. Something imaginary exists only in imagination; it lacks factual reality. Subjective notions such as internal personal experiences or feelings are indistinguishable from imagination. If you couldn’t turn to people next to you and ask, “Did you see/hear/smell/feel that?” and expect them to say, “Yes” then whatever it is you experienced was likely imaginary. You need to provide something objective that we could all perceive to detect your God and verify that it is real. We need to distinguish objective reality from a subjective reality in which people believe things are as they want or imagine them to be rather than as they are.

Now, if you have provided a factual description of your God or sound evidence and sound arguments to prove that it is real then you have established the truth or validity of your belief. Otherwise, it is more likely you are simply deceiving yourself.

Edit: addendum

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 03:34:00 AM by bertatberts »

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Would you be okay with stating what you understand by the two terms, and how you would go about determining if something was one rather than the other?

I.E. "Causation is.....", "Correlation is.....", "the process I use to determine if a thing is one or the other is....."

Because I honestly don't believe you understand the difference between the two terms.

This causation coorelation thing has its applications in a normal argument. What I have done here is deliver reports, many reports of the supernatural. I am not making them up. I am not lying about them. I am not demented. I have no mental illness. I am not psychotic. I am not deranged.

All of these truths of the matter should give you pause as you try to apply your normal analysis to what I have written. The causation coorelation may be meaningful in some instance but the shear number of accounts I have cannot be diced up in the conventional way.

Well, well - several attempts to avoid actually answering the question there Wayne. I must again give you credit for trying. I left in, above, the only paragraph that actually refers to correlation or causation. So I'll ask you again if you'd be prepared to complete the following sentences:

"Causation is.....", "Correlation is.....", "the process I use to determine if a thing is one or the other is....."

Can you - will you - do that for me, so we can move on? Or will you again deflect and avoid actually answering another very simple question?

Why don't you try this: strip away any commentary of what I think God meant by the earthquake incident, and tell me what the incident would have meant to you if it had happened to you. Re read that story and forget about whatever it was I said I thought it meant.

Very well - I will. I will give you a direct answer to this specific question. I will post it here. Bear with me while I carefully re-read the story and respond.

Edit 1: I can't reach your stories through the firewall - I'll see if I can find the story in this thread, otherwise it'll have to wait until I'm at home.

One morning at Paul's Coffee shop I had a vision, the restaurant went into upheaval; some screaming, some laughing, some running out the door, everything disrupted. This vision occurred as I stared into my eggs as they went cold.

Two days later I returned to the same restaurant, sat in same counter stool and then the October 1 1987 earthquake caused the same thing I had seen in the vision. I had just told the lady next to me that Pat Robertson would have an impact on the nation and as I said the word impact the quake began. A waitress screamed and ran outside, commotion ensued but the lady and I just laughed. Exactly like the vision.

I should mention that Pat Robertson, on that very day, announced his candidacy for presidency in New York, where he got his start. You would think that I might have known that because I watched 700 Club back then, but I didn't.The reason I told the stranger lady what I thought about Robertson was that I overheard her telling someone next to her about the announcement. How rude of me to interrupt their conversation.

Can you clarify what you mean by "vision", first off? To answer your question, obviously I need to know exactly what you meant. Do you mean that as you sat there your sensory input was altered, such that you actually literally "saw" all the above things happen, after which there was a snapping-back to reality (much as might happen in a TV show) where you blink and everything returns to normal? Or was it a playing out of a scenario in your head, a vivid imagining or daydreaming of things happening? I don't mean any slight by those words, just trying to draw a distinction between perceiving things as if they were actually happening, or more like....a memory, I suppose.

1.Sickeningly sweet stories with a moral, often hiding slightly sinister undertones.Imitative of the retching that might be induced by stories of this kindhttp://en.dictionary.org/wiki/glurge

You have such a kind way with words, you and bertatberts make a good team.

We should start from ground zero. My first introduced story called: Why God Let Those Kids Die, and analyse just what it is about it that makes it a glurge.

Point by point, the sinister undertone. Please explain.

Then, would you next please point out each point and phrase about it qualifies as sickeningly sweet.

You throw these terms around, I need you to defend them.

I have told you all before that I am a reporter of what has happened to me, I'm not a fiction writer. As you look at what I've written in that light, and the dire repercussions that have resulted from atheist bad behavior, I hardly think that qualifies as a glurge.

However, if someone is at a loss to find an adequate rebuttal to the reporting of supernatural guidance, they resort to profanities.

So, are you using Glurge as a profanity because you are at a loss? Or do you think my Why God Let Those Kids Die is sickeningly sweet?

Again, I will respond directly to this question. Again, once I've got round the firewall issue. In the meantime, I wonder what you think of this sentence?

However, if someone is at a loss to find an adequate rebuttal to the questioning of supernatural guidance, they resort to patronising remarks and deflections.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that comment. Instead I will ask you a question. Do you understand that when someone asks questions that are repeatedly deflected or ignored, that that may have an effect on how they will respond to the person they perceive as stalling?

Can you clarify what you mean by "vision", first off? To answer your question, obviously I need to know exactly what you meant. Do you mean that as you sat there your sensory input was altered, such that you actually literally "saw" all the above things happen, after which there was a snapping-back to reality (much as might happen in a TV show) where you blink and everything returns to normal? Or was it a playing out of a scenario in your head, a vivid imagining or daydreaming of things happening? I don't mean any slight by those words, just trying to draw a distinction between perceiving things as if they were actually happening, or more like....a memory, I suppose.

A vision can be defined as a dream only you are awake. I did go into a kind of trans state, but the impressions were all in the mind, no (visual)apperitions. The TV thing is pretty much like it as much as TV is able to depict it.

I have had other apperitions that were strong enough to seem visual on other occasions, but a case could be made that even they were all in the mind.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

EDIT: Actually, scratch that comment. Instead I will ask you a question. Do you understand that when someone asks questions that are repeatedly deflected or ignored, that that may have an effect on how they will respond to the person they perceive as stalling?

I'll try to improve, but I can say that there are never questions you ask that are uncomfortable to me because I'm afraid of some truth, it's that I can't think of how to answer it. The coorelation causation thing is important in you need to go through some logical progression that I'm having trouble applying to the reports of the supernatural. I may catch on to you needs, if you will concede that logic has its limits in the supernatural.

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Can you clarify what you mean by "vision", first off? To answer your question, obviously I need to know exactly what you meant. Do you mean that as you sat there your sensory input was altered, such that you actually literally "saw" all the above things happen, after which there was a snapping-back to reality (much as might happen in a TV show) where you blink and everything returns to normal? Or was it a playing out of a scenario in your head, a vivid imagining or daydreaming of things happening? I don't mean any slight by those words, just trying to draw a distinction between perceiving things as if they were actually happening, or more like....a memory, I suppose.

A vision can be defined as a dream only you are awake. I did go into a kind of trans state, but the impressions were all in the mind, no (visual)apperitions. The TV thing is pretty much like it as much as TV is able to depict it.

Apologies, I'm still not quite clear - I can read your response both ways. I'll rephrase: did what you "saw" in the vision appear to be actually happening in front of you, or did you perceive it at the time as being internal to your mind? Could you still see the real world while the vision played out in your head, or did the vision overrule the real world while it was happening?

Was the vision from a static point of view? Was your sightline locked during the vision, or was it as if your head was moving while it happened?

I'm guessing from what you've said about "staring into your eggs" that it was an entirely internal vision that did not overwhelm the real world - that you were (as it were) "lost in thought" in the same way as if recalling a particularly vivid memory?

Apologies for drilling down to the detail - you wanted to know what my reaction would be, and I can't answer that until I am 100% sure of what it was I would be describing my reaction to. It may take some time before I will be able to actually give the answer, sorry.

To save some time, some subsidiary questions that aren't made clear in your story.

1) Was the woman you spoke to on 1st Oct present in your vision of the (29th?)?2) Were any other specific people in the diner on the 1st that you recognised as being in the vision?3) In the vision, did you speak to the lady you were sitting by?I guess the overarching question is: did the minutest aspect of the vision play out in exact detail on the 1st, in every detail?

Two more - sorry!

How real did the vision feel when you were having it?When the real events were playing out, did you feel in control of your actions and words?